spell_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It communicates a read-only operation through 'Get' and adds a useful output detail: 'Returns the complete entry with description merged in.' It does not discuss error/not-found behavior, but for a simple read tool this is a minor gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it gets, what it returns, and when to choose it over the sibling. No filler or repetition of schema content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity getter with three params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, selection criterion, and return composition. It could be slightly more complete about what happens when no spell matches, but that is not a blocking gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reemphasizes 'exactly name,' mirroring the schema's name parameter, but adds no new meaning for the source or ruleset parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a specific D&D 5e spell by exact name.' It also distinguishes itself from spell_search by emphasizing the exact-name requirement, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Prefer this over spell_search when you have an exact name.' This names the sibling alternative and gives the condition that selects this tool; the opposite case (use spell_search for non-exact/fuzzy queries) is clearly implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.